That was the topic of a conference last Friday at the American Enterprise Institute. The three panelists who addressed this question agreed that an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be worrisome indeed, not because Iran would immediately incinerate Tel Aviv, but because it would almost certainly use its conventional forces and its terrorist infrastructure more aggressively once it enjoyed the protection of the Bomb, because an Iranian nuclear force would provoke a nuclear arms race in the middle east, and because collapse of the current regime, should it ever come, might put loose nukes into the hands of dangerous elements who are less interested than the regime in self-preservation or are less easy to identify and target. Some people believe that if every country had a nuclear weapon, the world would be more peaceful rather than more dangerous—“More Guns, Less Crime” internationally speaking—but the panelists did not. We survived the cold war but there were a number of close calls; given enough nukes and enough time, something very bad will happen.
John Bolton pressed the case for an Israeli attack with customary vigor, but the other two panelists were more persuasive. Michael Rubin believed that an Israeli attack would either not succeed at all or do no more than delay the nuclear program by a year or two. Logistics are too hard; Iranian defenses are good and getting better; the program is too advanced. Martin Indyk argued that diplomacy could still do some good, but the impression he gave was less that of enthusiasm about the prospects for diplomatic success, which sounded pretty hopeless, but, like Rubin, of the futility of military action, leaving diplomacy as the sole alternative.
With every day, the globe rolls farther from Obama’s (and Reagan’s) dream of a nuke-free world. Determined states can build nuclear weapons if they want to; foreign states are too divided to prevent them from doing so. The benefits of holding nuclear weapons, in terms of short-term security and national prestige, are considerable, and they will continue to increase as American power declines and U.S. security guarantees become less credible. The cost of developing nuclear weapons becomes, every year, a smaller portion of states’ national products and hence a smaller burden on their budgets. We will just have to live (or die) with this state of affairs.
I was given the humble—indeed, in context, vaguely comical—task of commenting on the law (also on my panel were Edwin Williamson and Gregory Maggs). Here is what I said.
1. The black-letter law.
Article 51 of the UN charter permits countries to use military force in self-defense; otherwise, security council authorization is required. Clearly, Israel will not obtain Security Council authorization, so the only question is that of self-defense. International law, like domestic law, understands self-defense in narrow terms. A state may act in self-defense by repelling an attack or countering an imminent attack, but self-defense does not encompass military attacks against states that merely pose a threat, however significant.
In international law, as in other fields of law, the black letter does not always tell us what we need to know. International law can change as a result of state behavior; treaties can fall out of use, they can be ignored, customary norms can pile up in their place. So it is legitimate to ask whether norms that recognize broader forms of self-defense have built up over the years and replaced the traditional narrow conception.
It’s a legitimate question but the answer is surely no. The negative reaction to the invasion of Iraq is a recent precedent. No state, as far as I know, accepted the Bush administration’s argument that the United States (or any other state) was entitled to launch preemptive attacks against states that develop WMDs and may hand them over to terrorists. An older but very close precedent is Israel’s attack on the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, which was condemned as a violation of international law by the Security Council. The only recent war that suggested movement in states’ understanding of the use of force norms was the 1999 intervention in Kosovo, which was also illegal—there was no Security Council resolution and the intervention was not in self-defense. But the major idea that arose out of that war was that military force could be used to stop humanitarian catastrophes—not the situation in Iran today—and in any event that idea was only briefly considered before it was shot down.
There is another precedent of great importance, however, albeit a kind of non-precedent precedent. This was Israel’s attack on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria in 2007. You might not remember the resounding international condemnation of this attack or the Security Council resolution declaring that Israel had violated the UN charter—because none of this occurred. The world was simply silent. True, no one declared that Israel had acted lawfully, but no one condemned Israel, either. What should we make of this? It has some significance, as I will discuss shortly, but it doesn’t establish that anticipatory self-defense is lawful.
Why don’t states accept a broader definition of self-defense? The argument in favor of such a definition is straightforward. Some states can become major threats long before they launch an attack. If other states are not permitted to take military action against them at an early stage, they may not be able to defend themselves until it is too late. This argument is not a bad one, but I suspect that the reason that states have not accepted this argument is that a broader definition of self-defense would be easy to manipulate, and so would end up gutting the prohibition on use of force. Perhaps also they believe that the Security Council can step in if such a situation occur, and use its legal authority to counter the threat. One can see why these views would be of cold comfort for the states that are being threatened.
2. The consequences.
It is a mistake in international law, as in domestic law, to stop with the black letter. Clients care about the consequences of violating the law, not the mere fact of it. When Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, it was universally condemned for its violation of international law. But nothing happened after that. The Security Council did not try to sanction Israel, nor did any country of any importance, as far as I know. As I mentioned above, there was no international response to the attack on Syria in 2007. Nor was there a response to the recent (alleged) Israeli attack on a convoy in Sudan. Some violations of international law—like some violations of domestic law—do not result in punishment.
There is no doubt that an attack on Iran would be condemned internationally, including possibly by the United States. But even if the United States condemned the attack and joined a Security Council resolution condemning the attack as it did after the Osirak incident, the United States would not permit the Security Council to impose sanctions on Israel, and it is hard to imagine there would be much enthusiasm for such a move among other states anyway. Nor does it seem likely that states would independently try to impose sanctions on Israel, or that any state would try to prosecute Israeli officials for aggressive war, which for various reasons remains a problematic international crime. Neither Israel nor Iran is a party to the International Criminal Court (which in any event does not yet have jurisdiction over the crime of aggressive war), and the United States would block a Security Council referral to the ICC even if some basis of jurisdiction could be devised. The consequence of an attack would most likely be diplomatic isolation of some sort, for some period of time, and (further) damage to Israel’s international reputation. Whether the benefits of an attack outweigh this cost is a question that only the Israelis can answer.
Instapundit » Blog Archive » SHOULD ISRAEL attack Iran? The alternative would seem to involve waiting for Iran to attack Israel…. says:
[...] ISRAEL attack Iran? The alternative would seem to involve waiting for Iran to attack Israel. If I were the Israelis, [...]
October 25, 2009, 9:13 pmSuperSkeptic says:
There is another precedent of great importance, however, albeit a kind of non-precedent precedent. This was Israel’s attack on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria in 2007. You might not remember the resounding international condemnation of this attack or the Security Council resolution declaring that Israel had violated the UN charter—because none of this occurred. The world was simply silent. True, no one declared that Israel had acted lawfully, but no one condemned Israel, either. What should we make of this? It has some significance, as I will discuss shortly, but it doesn’t establish that anticipatory self-defense is lawful.
This furthers the argument that there is no such thing as non-precendent precedent, there is only precedent; therefore, there should be no such thing as “non-binding” precedent.
October 25, 2009, 9:22 pmMark N. says:
I suppose it’s a question a legal blog is less qualified to answer, but it seems there might be consequences other than bad publicity at the UN, like Iranian missiles?
October 25, 2009, 9:24 pmTCO says:
Israel lacks the ability to mount a strike like this. It’s a long distance. Hardened and multiple targets. And the air space in between is controlled by a much stronger entity. Trying to get Uncle Sam to do their bidding is a smarter move logistically.
October 25, 2009, 9:29 pmTCO says:
Also, I thought we learned a couple years ago from some intelligence assessment that Iran was no threat and it was just a bunch of Bush propoganda! Sheesh…CIA is wrong when they predict their are weapons and wrong with the converse. When will someone get rid of these abysmal Post Office quality spies!
October 25, 2009, 9:31 pmNoah David Simon says:
What makes you think that this U.N. thingy won’t try to sanction Israel for attacking Iran? At this juncture the U.N. has no relevance to morality. International law has been a joke for years. this U.N. likes to hear the sound of their own voices because anything they say does not correlate to anything they said before. frankly I’m not sure where to begin exploring this, but I think this link might be a good start. http://xrl.us/Goldstone …the holes in logic are endless and I’m not going to have any pretense to describe where I would begin with any proof. What is more interesting to me is if it is true that in 2007 U.S. undercover agencies held George W. Bush and Israel back from a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities through lies and treason. which seems to be a new issue that is being uncovered. I wonder if this rogue Episcopalean element loves the endgame we are at now where they have their Saud proxy running the government? http://noahdavidsimon.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-2007-us-undercover-agencies-hold.html
time will tell, but we might be dead
October 25, 2009, 9:32 pmricky says:
A better question is this:
Why do US politicians and commentators treat Israel as a proxy for US military interests? Why do we care about Israel at all?
The answers to these questions might lead someone to some very un-PC and disturbing conclusions.
October 25, 2009, 9:39 pmRandy says:
Well, one thing we can count on. If Israel strikes against Iran, thousands here will — once again — prepare for the inevitable Rapture that is sure to follow.
October 25, 2009, 9:43 pmMark Buehner says:
There is something to be said for even retarding Iran’s progress. Also, its not about destroying every last centrifuge. What you really want to do is kill the scientists and engineers that design and utilize the equipment at these installations. They are not so easily replaceable.
October 25, 2009, 9:47 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Good question Rick, why Mr. Posner?
October 25, 2009, 9:48 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Nice analysis, but I think you’re way too sanguine about the U.S. reaction. I can see this administration voting along with the S.C. to put sanctions on Israel. I can even see it shooting down Israeli aircraft over Iraq. That would be a real quick way to make us much more popular in the world, which seems to be the goal.
It’s really hard to be un-PC when you’re bashing Israel. It’s all the rage. During the Cold War Israel was about our only friend in the region, and some folks think that if you’ve got an ally you should stick with it, even when it becomes inconvenient. It’s also a Western democracy and not a terrorist-pushing Arab state.
October 25, 2009, 9:55 pmBob from Ohio says:
Nonsense, the American public strongly backs Israel and hates Iran. An Israeli attack on Iran gets 60% backing at least. No US administration will buck that.
October 25, 2009, 10:02 pmgasman says:
If the inevitability of an israeli attack on Iran becomes generally acknowledged then it is not only rational for Iran to strike first, but the international law requirement for imminence will have been met.
October 25, 2009, 10:07 pmOnce it appears reasonably probably that israel will attack, then iran is justified in pre-emption in its own self defense.
PeteP says:
Given the UN’s history of success in preventing / mitigating / ending conflicts world-wide since it’s inception ( ha ha ha ), it is a grave mistake to pay them the slightest mind, in any way shape or form.
Our best bet would be to re-possess Turtle Bay / Rockefeller Plaza / et al lock stock and barrel, and invite them to go build themselves a new HQ elsewhere, at their own expense. I understand you can get some good real estate deal in Sudan, Somalia, the Congo, Nigeria, and various other places where the UN has extered its fine and noble influence.
If they want, we could probably find some nice Federal land to sell tham ( at fair market value ) in Montana. Let them write their ‘strongly worded letters’ from there, after debating each one for years.
October 25, 2009, 10:17 pmbartman says:
Mr. Posner:
How will Irn use its conventional forces more aggressively? Is it your contention that they will invade Iraq or Afghanistan if they have nukes? The only country in the region woth invading is Saudi Arabia, and if they do, we should cheer them on. Vaprorize the House of Saud and global terrorism declines about 50% instantly. I still don’t understand why Shrub didn’t do it.
October 25, 2009, 10:19 pmBenP says:
This is quite possibly the most pointless criticism of the UN that can be made, because the UN was specicifically designed to be just this way.
Ask yourself, would ANY of the major powers (at the time or in the present) have agreed to the formation of A United Nations body if that body could actually take any substantive action against that nation?
Of course not, so we designed it so that every country that mattered at the time had a permanent veto over any substantive action the UN might take, and where any resources to be committed had to be volunteered by the member nations at the time the decision was made. Were you under the illusion such a system could actually be a strong one in any way? Nearly every possible time you can point to the UN being “weak” in some regard, it’s been a direct consequence of its design. We wouldn’t dare risk it being strong because then it might go against what we want it to do and we wouldn’t be able to stop it.
There’s no such bar in the general assembly because it can’t fundamentally do anything. It can censure, and control access to other UN programs, but that’s about it. So what if the general assembly censors Israel? When have they particualrly cared about world opinion when it came to matters of national survival? and can you ever see the US allowing the UN security counsel to impose anything but the most token (and probably not even that) snactions against Israel?
October 25, 2009, 10:28 pmBenP says:
ahem, oil?
Suppose Iran becomes a serious regional power (in actuality “even more of a serious regional power), and either controls or can bully Kuwait and SA into doing what they want. Then they control a substantial portion of the world oil supply. Do you expect that would turn out well for the US?
October 25, 2009, 10:30 pmD.R.M. says:
Another question is whether the prohibition on aggression has fallen out of use, been ignored, and had customary norms piled up in its place. If so, it is irrelevant whether an Israeli attack would be self-defense, since aggression would be legal.
A short review of actual practice since the Charter came into nominal force would show there is actually no norm at all against aggression, merely a dead clause occasionally waved for rhetorical purposes. Accordingly, an act of Israeli aggression against Iran would not actually violate international law. Just as certainly, neither would an Iranian attack against Israel.
October 25, 2009, 10:40 pmTodd Klimson says:
Hello My name is Rahim. I was born in 20000 BC. Ive been wanting these people to obliterate eachother for quite some time so can we cease these silly comments.
October 25, 2009, 10:42 pmbartman says:
BenP:
You think an Iran-dominated OPEC will be worse for the US than a Saudi-dominated one? Answer: no.
Also, consider that an attack by the only Shia-controlled nation in the world on any Sunni nation will unleash a religious civil war unlike any ever seen. Every Sunni terrrist who ever set foot in a madrassa will turn their wrath on Iran. Most Sunnis don’t believe that Shia is actually Islam, so such an attack would be seen as the act of an infidel.
Will Iran use nukes or conventional forces against Israel? Well, considering that they’ve never attacked another country, it’s unlikely, Dinner-Jacket’s empty rhetoric notwithstanding.
Iran is a country surrounded by hostile nations. It’s desire to obtain nukes as a deterrent to attack by a belligerent neighbor is perfectly understandable.
October 25, 2009, 10:57 pmBenP says:
and do tell, what would be the results of a massive civil war on oil production?
As for OPEC, you’re missing the point that “dominated” isn’t exactly what occurs now. Actual physical power in the region would give much more dominance over actual production than mere position does with the saudis.
October 25, 2009, 10:59 pmBenP says:
Well that was interesting.
The sum of what I wrote in the 10:59 post was
1. what do you think the results of an open civil war would be on oil production? certainly not positive.
2. Regarding OPEC, there’s two completely different levels of domination. THe saudis merely produce more than everyone else, and parties don’t always agree with one another. Physical control over production is something else entirely.
October 25, 2009, 11:04 pmAlexia says:
This whole concept of starting a war and calling it preemptive war is revolting. If Iran attacks Israel, then Israel should nuke Iran. If Iran doesn’t attack Israel, then Israel should just live with the noise.
Iran has never been the aggressor in any of the skirmishes it’s been involved with. Never!
The people who live there are some of the most westernized (or they were) in the whole region. It’s absolutely insane to think bombing them is in any way justifiable.
Their president has a big mouth. Oh well. Fortunately for me, that’s not a crime.
And yeah, I don’t understand the willingness to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers in defense of Israel. If they were really valuable as an ally, they wouldn’t steal our military secrets and keep demanding that we fund them infinitely
October 25, 2009, 11:06 pmBrian says:
“International” law is a category error. The only important question is whether an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be worth it, and the answer seems to be yes. If it delays the Iranian program for another 18 months, that’s sufficient time for the Iranian people to overthrow the current regime. If not, Israel can always bomb again in 18 months. Both outcomes are preferable to apocalyptic theocrats getting the nuclear bomb.
October 25, 2009, 11:40 pmalt.view says:
Why does it make good financial/business sense for Iran to attack Israel? We an talk mentally masturbate about the religious conflict all we want – but it is illogical from a long term sense of profit/prestige/’power’ for Iran to do anything other than make idle threats (don’t get wrapped around the ‘illogical’ here – I understand that war happens for reasons outside the rational). Neither side has the ability to actually make a prolonged attack on the other, neither side can actually hold the territory should it try to take it from the other, and neither side has anything to really _gain_ from a preemptive ‘strike’…..
October 25, 2009, 11:50 pmCornellian says:
John Bolton pressed the case for an Israeli attack with customary vigor
Did he bother to articulate the premise that the United States would become involved on Israel’s behalf, or in his worldview does that just go without saying?
October 25, 2009, 11:57 pmJaimeInTexas says:
Has Iran violated the terms of the NNP?
And what about Israel’s nuclear weapons? Well, alleged nuclear weapons program.
I thought the these uS only wage war in self-defense and not to pursue a globalist agenda as dictated by the UN!
October 25, 2009, 11:59 pmJaimeInTexas says:
Cornellian: Talk about moral hazard!
Will the uS Congress declare war? Doubt it … such a quaint anachronistic idea.
Why doesn’t Israel just petition these uS for annexation?
October 26, 2009, 12:04 amobi juan says:
Wouldn’t an attack on Iran by Israel instantly make matters worse for us in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can this be seen as being in our interests?
October 26, 2009, 12:11 amFat Man says:
Anthoney Cordesman wrote an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal on September 25, 2009: “The Iran Attack Plan”
After reading it, and after digesting the news about the Qom enrichment facility. I thought that Israel, probably should not attack, because it does not have the capability to make a big enough attack to solve the problem on a long term basis. Only the US can do that, and our CiC is a Nancy Boy. OTOH, Israel should continue to make menacing noises as those give the Western Powers more leverage in negotiations.
October 26, 2009, 12:20 amMichael Barclay says:
If Iran got a nuclear bomb, it would be useful as a deterrent, but not much more. As a practical matter, Iran could not use the bomb on Israel or anyone else. If Iran dropped a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv, the United States (not just Israel) would drop so many nuclear bombs on Iran that Turkmenistan would have a warm water port where Iran used to be.
October 26, 2009, 12:31 amWahneema's #1 Fan: says:
But like, how ever is Israel is going to like, live, if all the other girls hate her? As if! I mean, there’s no way she’ll escape the UN’s Burn Book if she goes through with this. Gosh, if she does, I’m pretty sure she can scrap her invitation to Saudi Arabia’s birthday party, which I’m hearing is going to be absolutely fabulous. That girl is like soooo hot right now.
October 26, 2009, 12:45 amApu Nahasapasapeemipetilon says:
My question is: why have millions or even billions of OUR taxpayer dollars been given to Israel? so they can perpetuate a cycle of violence? or to be the “bulwark” of democracy in a place that doesn’t want it?
October 26, 2009, 1:01 amTen Four says:
The legal issues seem rather beside the point.
It seem fair to assume, given all the attendant risks and difficulties, that Israel would only execute such an attack in the face of what they believed to be an real existential threat.
The real question is whether or not Iran can be deterred, in the MAD sense. If not, then they may indeed face a real and possibly imminent existential threat, and the international legal consequences hardly matter. If Iran can be deterred, then its a MAD world.
Israel probably has a triad delivery capability (aircraft, land based missile, submarine launch missile). They recently added 2 more submarines to their Navy, bringing the number to 5 or 6. Each can carry multiple nuclear cruise missiles, with sufficient range to reach Iran and other targets of interest.
It would seem the most effective response would be to make it very clear to Iran that in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel, that Israel would retaliate via counter-value (city) strikes. Cordsman has a 2007 study on the effects of a Israeli counter-value strike on Iran which should be pretty sobering – Iran is essentially destroyed.
And just to ensure everyone has skin in the game, Israel should let the other area governments know that if it comes to that, all the major capitals are on the target list. That might get a few more people worrying about how to tone down Iran’s threats, and help ensure that nuclear weapons were kept out of non-state actor hands.
October 26, 2009, 1:34 amTim says:
Pretty much my thoughts as well. As long as I don’t have to pay for it, I don’t really care what they do, but I’m more towards preferring that they do it than do nothing.
I can think of few things that’d suck more than a country like Iran having a bomb. All this talk of peaceful Iran comes from people in America who have met Iranian citizens. I have met them too. They are surprisingly nice and somewhat westernized. The last Iranian woman I met was smoking a Marlboro light.
They also have no control over the crazy politics of their country, and those are the people who will have the bomb.
Someone has to do something about it, and as far as I’m concerned, better them than me.
October 26, 2009, 1:50 amengineer says:
Few people really know the likelihood of success of an Israeli attack or the severity of the counterattack that Iran would wage.
But from a geopolitical perspective, the Israelis have little to lose by attacking. If they are successful, the international community will harshly condemn them but secretly be extremely grateful.
If the Israelis do nothing, then Iran becomes a regional superpower, Hezbollah becomes a “legitimate” entity, Turkey firmly enters the Muslim sphere, many more Goldstone commissions and the like will take place… EU nations could begin to sever ties etc.
If the Israelis attack and fail to make a major impact, then the approbrium will muted somewhat in view of the courage that they have exhibited as well as the damage that they will have suffered especially from Hezbollah on the northern front.
October 26, 2009, 2:25 amengineer says:
If Iran dropped a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv, the United States (not just Israel) would drop so many nuclear bombs on Iran that Turkmenistan would have a warm water port where Iran used to be.
First of all the US would do no such thing.
Second of all, the cold war and MAD doctrine belong to the previous century. A nuclear response to a nuclear attack cannot be justified under the current assumptions of scholars of international law.
Also we could be certain that even if both Iran and Israel used nukes on civilian targets (ie. in an Israeli MAD response), the subsequent UN commissions would only focus on Israel (ie. as we’ve seen with Goldstone etc.).
October 26, 2009, 2:33 amengineer says:
Iran has never been the aggressor in any of the skirmishes it’s been involved with. Never!
Ever heard of Hezbollah?
October 26, 2009, 2:35 amBruce says:
Nonproliferation is an unattainable utopian ideal. For better or for worse, the USA opened the nuclear Pandora’s Box, and ushered the world into the Atomic Age. For a long time the nuclear club was not accepting new members. Nobody was pleased to see India and Pakistan joining up, nobody wants to admit that Israel’s a member, and nobody wants to let Iran and North Korea join — but that’s where the illusion ends that this is an exclusive club. The technology’s out there for anybody with the time and resources to develop it. It’s just a matter of time until other developing nations go after nuclear energy, hopefully for peaceful ends; but it would be unrealistic to imagine nobody else is going to make nuclear bombs. Thank God the Cold War is over and we’re not imposing drop drills on grade school children any more; but we must not make the mistake of thinking that we’ve reached the end of history. The other mistake we must not make is thinking that the threat of another country developing a nuclear potential justifies pre-emptive invasion. We can’t regain the innocence of the pre-nuclear era. We live in a world where sovereign countries are entitled to their own scientific and security programs, and that sovereignty is a precious right that people fight and die for. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to allow any global regulatory body to dictate what technology my country could use to defend itself. Why should Iran or Israel or North Korea be any different in that respect than the U.S. or Russia or France? So what if Argentina or South Africa want to develop nuclear technology? Isn’t that their right? It is an unattainable utopian delusion to think that some people are entitled to a technology and other people aren’t; and it’s a dangerous delusion when military action is taken to back it up. Seriously, world, stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.
October 26, 2009, 7:15 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Should Israel Attack Iran? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Omar Ha-Redeye and Michael Castro, montserratlj. montserratlj said: #InternationalLaw Should Israel Attack Iran? (Eric Posner, The Volokh Conspiracy blog): http://bit.ly/p8HIx (HT @OmarHaRedeye) [...]
October 26, 2009, 7:51 amPersonFromPorlock says:
JaimeInTexas:
Not actually a bad idea: we have Texas as a precedent for bringing a separate country into the Union, and Utah as an example of how a state with a religious monoculture (to the extent that either Utah or Israel has one) fits in.
The Israelis get security, the Palestenians get the protection of US civil rights laws and the region gets stability. I suspect it’d turn into a can of worms in practice, but it’s worth thinking about.
October 26, 2009, 7:51 amYankev says:
He probably has, but he’s probably also bought the line that Hamas (also funded by Iran) and Hezbollah are simply peaceful agrarian reformers.
October 26, 2009, 9:27 amGramarye says:
PFP:
I agree that it’s worth thinking about either outright annexation or of forming some kind of formal non-state relationship with a hard, explicit security guarantee (a la Puerto Rico) in the halcyon quiet of the academy, yes. In the real world, the political obstacles would be serious (not least of which is that I doubt you’d find much enthusiasm for the prospect in Israel itself), and the benefits of such a move even if successful might well be outweighed by the liabilities.
The issue of what to do with the territories would remain, whether we purported to annex them as well or not. Israel also has a number of ethnically and sexually discriminatory laws, ranging from racial profiling on airline flights to single-sex access to certain places of religious significance. The consequences for our basing rights and oil supplies from the rest of the region could range from negligible to catastrophic.
I have no objection in principle to the further growth of the Union, and I consider myself a fairly strong supporter of Israel’s right of self-defense, including in terms beyond those accepted in customary international law. However, I don’t think that this would work–and, I would add, it deserves a separate topic.
October 26, 2009, 9:29 amNoah David Simon says:
IT ISN’T IRAN THE DISTURBS ME AS MUCH AS IRANIAN PROXIES
October 26, 2009, 9:30 amimporting a Nuke near Israel for Hamas and Hezbollah is inevitable if Iran gets the bomb. the question shouldn’t be about if Israel should attack Iran. the answer to that if your point of view is for life is yes they should. the bigger question is *WHY* hasn’t Israel attacked yet? *WHY*? the answer is because Israel doesn’t know anything about Iran’s programs. they know a little, but I’m willing to bet that there are other sites… some known by our government in the U.S. already… and even sites we know nothing about. The only thing holding back Israel is “Intelligence” and Obama ain’t sharing… plus he’s purging after Zionist spies like the Stalinist that he is. People forget that the information that Jonathan Pollard went to jail for life for was about Iraq’s Chemical Ali.
bartman says:
Ever heard of Hezbollah?
Uhm, Geer, Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization. Calling Hezbollah “Iranian” is a bit like calling the Contras or the Mujahadeen “American.”
None of the things you mention as outcomes are likely. A nuclear Iran affects Turkey or Europe or the UN not one iota. All it does is deter aggression by its neighbors, all of whom are hostile to one degree or another. Probably, the worst case scenario is an exchange of nukes between Pakistan and Iran if we have any more Pakistan-backed Baluchi terrorist attacks, to which Iranian nukes would create a formidable deterrent.
October 26, 2009, 9:34 amYankev says:
Cute and I assume facetious, but here’s the non-facetious reason why not. The Jews worldwide would lose sovereignty over their national homeland, and as a result would lose their place of refuge from persecution. WWII taughts us that non-Jewish countries, the US included, could not be relied upon to give refuge to Jews fleeing extermination and that most, the US included, could be relied upon to resist giving refuge. The idea of a Jewish ethnic (not religious) national state had been a poltical movement for nearly a century before that, but did not gain international support among non-Jewish nations until the end of the war revealed to the world that the Jews had not exaggerated the situation.
October 26, 2009, 9:36 amYankev says:
Yeah, just another excuse thought up by those
October 26, 2009, 9:39 amgreedy Jewsexpansionsist Zionist Likudnik religious fanatic right wing settlers to justify their territorial designs on Tehran, so they can build settlements there in the name of self-defense.geokstr says:
If we could ever get the left to abandon its anti-nuclear and drilling positions, we could probably be energy independent in a decade, with new massive discoveries of both oil and natural gas right here.
As a member of the right, I could get behind a manhattan style project to research and implement new energy technologies, but with a sound and sensible transition period that included new drilling and nuclear power.
Then, we could tell the House of Saud and the Ayatollahs to go take a flying leap, generate massive new tax and revenue streams to feed the insatiable gov spending machine, stop financing the jihad against us, and give our own economy a shot in the arm. The right has never been against new energy technology anyway, just the insanity of doing it all at once overnight based on shaky, expensive sources, so it all requires the radical leftists to give in to drilling and nuclear first.
Never gonna happen.
October 26, 2009, 10:00 amOren says:
Yankev, you can state it in a ridiculous fashion, but it is still hard for me justify (much as I would like to on practical grounds) a purely speculative strike.
Nobody wants a nuclear Iran but that’s not enough here.
October 26, 2009, 10:01 amMark Buehner says:
Funny that so many people expect tiny Israel to accept threats that America would never, not in a million years, accept.
Remember when we almost ended the world because somebody parked a dozen missiles off the coast of Florida? And we’re gonna lecture Israel.
One Nagasaki style bomb would end the entire Israeli state forever, and meanwhile the enemy in question has openly spoken about having the capacity to absorb a nuclear counter-attack. While its certainly reckless to assume every threat is worth a preemptive war over, it is even stupider to ignore blatant, plainly spoken threats. We are making a dangerous assumption believing the Mullahs are rational, by our sense of the word.
This situation is ripe for one of those failures of imagination historians look back on and shake their heads wondering what the hell we were thinking.
October 26, 2009, 10:28 amJust Dropping By says:
One Nagasaki style bomb would end the entire Israeli state forever
Nice use of breathless hysterics!
October 26, 2009, 11:18 amBlue Stater says:
While its certainly reckless to assume every threat is worth a preemptive war over, it is even stupider to ignore blatant, plainly spoken threats. We are making a dangerous assumption believing the Mullahs are rational, by our sense of the word.
I refuse to even consider this possibility because my whole life I’ve been taught that the world is one big happy family.
October 26, 2009, 11:29 ambartman says:
it is even stupider to ignore blatant, plainly spoken threats
Plainly spoken threats made by somebody without the power or authority to back them up should be ignored.
Yankev: I do not put Israel into the category of “hostile neighbors of Iran”. Ahmed DinnerJacket uses anti-Israel polemics as a way to distract the populace from his failures to deliver on his election priomises, nothing more. Most Iranians don’t really care.
If Israel nukes Iran, it will be because they want to, not because they need to.
October 26, 2009, 11:34 ambartman says:
We are making a dangerous assumption believing the Mullahs are rational, by our sense of the word.
Translation: they’re not really human, so there’s nothing wrong with killing them en masse.
October 26, 2009, 11:36 amBlue Stater says:
Bartman and me went to school together.
Ahmed DinnerJacket uses anti-Israel polemics as a way to distract the populace from his failures to deliver on his election priomises, nothing more. Most Iranians don’t really care.
Like I said, the world is one big happy family, and if someone threatens someone else, they can’t possibly mean it.
October 26, 2009, 11:50 amYankev says:
Oren, I share your concern. There are persuasive arguments for and against Israel striking against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, and I am glad that I am not the one who has to make that decision.
My response was posed in deliberately ridiculous terms for another reason. I do not consider Iran’s supposed peaceful history and intentions to be a persuasive argument, and any assertion that Iran has no responsibilty for or control over Hamas and Hezbollah yemach shemam is nothing short of ridiculous. It is difficult for me to accept such statements as the product of anything except the grossest willfull ignorance or brazen bad faith. Those assertions have no place in any serious discussion of the issue, and anyone who makes such laughable arguments should not expect to have those arguments treated seriously. Iran is benign? Tell it to the Jews who were murdered at the Buenos Aries Jewish community center.
October 26, 2009, 11:54 amBart DePalma says:
Law without enforcement is not law at all.
October 26, 2009, 11:56 amYankev says:
Yeah, it’s not like Iran has been working on nuclear bombs or missile technology. And it’s not like they’ve beens ending missiles and other arms to their proxies in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq.
Where did I read that before? Oh yeah, Germany. And the USSR. Okay, nothing to worry about then.
Most Iranians don’t control when the button gets pushed.
Yeah, it’s those
October 26, 2009, 12:04 pmbloodthirsty Jews who killed Christ and murder gentile babies for their bloodtrigger happy Israelis again, always looking for ways to divert huge sectors of their GNP to making war and excuses to kill the Muslims whom they dehumanize in their schools andmosquessynagogues, teaching that they are descended from pigs and apes, murdered the prophets and are the source of all crime, poverty and war. That’s why so many Arab children have had their throats cut or been beaten to death in Jewish neighborhoods, and why no Arab pizza shop is safe without a security guard to keep out Israeli suicide bombers. What planet do you live on? Must be a nice place, wherever it is.Ben P says:
I think they’re perfectly rational, and we may well be perfectly rational in opposing their machinations.
I’m inclined to agree with Bruce that non-proliferation is a pipe dream and we might be wasting resources in attempting to stop other nations from developing weapons that they believe to be in their own national interest. That’s not a conclusion as to whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, just that it’s not likely to succeed.
BUT, purely from a realist standpoint, ignoring Israel’s “specialness,” and islam and all those things, I think we can say that Iran is a regional power that pretty clearly has ambitions of exerting their own power outside of their borders. Bartman pointed out that Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, this ignores the fact that they were formed and trained by Iranian Revolutionary guard members, and that it’s still substantially funded by Iranian sources. Iran also asserts itself more directly in Lebanse and Syrian politics, as well as in its support of Shia militias in Iraq that were opposing the American presence there, and not to mention the Tanker war.
All of these situations are admittedly somewhat ambiguous as to the “agressor” but the fact remains we have a nation that is more than a little hostile to the US, seeking to expand its power in a region that is strategically very important to the United States.
That doesn’t touch so much more on whether or not Israel has the right to a pre-emptive strike, as to how our general tone with Iran ought to be, but it’s relevant.
October 26, 2009, 12:28 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Obligatory Hitler reference:
“[Hitler] uses anti-[Semitic] polemics as a way to distract the populace from his failures to deliver on his election priomises, nothing more. Most [Germans] don’t really care.”
Nothing to worry about.
October 26, 2009, 12:30 pmYankev says:
If you prefer, substitute Stalin. Or Brezhnev. Or Assad. Nothing to worry about there, either.
October 26, 2009, 1:25 pmMark says:
Israel should attack Iran if it thinks Iran poses a threat to its existence. Short of that, it should not.
But if it does attack, then Israel and Israel alone should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Without that counterbalance, one cannot trust the Israelis to act only when absolutely necessary.
October 26, 2009, 2:20 pmMark says:
Israel should attack Iran if it thinks Iran poses a real threat to its existence. Short of that, it should not. I don’t really care about the niceties of international law in such matters.
But if it does attack, then Israel and Israel alone should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Without that counterbalance, one cannot trust the Israelis to act only when absolutely necessary.
October 26, 2009, 2:21 pmMark Buehner says:
NO- translation: we assume our enemies seek ends that end up with them alive in the end. A dozen zealots smashing planes into buildings should have reminded us that that isn’t necessarily true. I have no desire to kill anyone en masse, but when a man like Ahmadinejad says Israel will be ‘wiped from the pages of history’, I’m not one of the (numerous) apologists jumping to explain what he ‘really meant’. Israel would do well to be wary of the man and his regime. If that means taking out his nuclear program before we can find out just how serious he is, so be it. What that has to do with en masse killing, I don’t know.
Again- its failure of imagination. I’ll consciously incur Godwin’s Law and point to all the Hitler apologists brushing off Mein Kaumf. Another man who told everyone exactly what he was going to do.
October 26, 2009, 2:38 pmBT says:
If Isreal attacks Iran would any other state(s) come to Irans defence? Yes the mullahs are not well loved by most other arab states but that does not mean that Syria, Lebanon, or some other actors would not join Iran in a counter attack.
October 26, 2009, 3:10 pmfirst history says:
As with most discussions on this topic, few consider the consequences of an Israeli (or US) attack on Iran. In order to be successful, such an attack would need to be sustained over several weeks, and would also involve ground troops to locate and mark targets. Israel may have the one-off capacity to destroy the known major targets, but it doesn’t have the capacity to seriously cripple the Iranian nuclear program.
And what are the consequences? Do you think Iran will just take its punishment? Does anyone think that the US will get blamed whether or ot it is involved? Obviously Iran would attack Israel, directly with its missiles and indirectly through Hezebollah. It would also certainly attack the US since we are Israel’s most powerful ally. Iraq would certainly get worse; the Taliban could receive more training from Iran, as it has been alleged it has now. Iran could also attack the US homeland through undiscovered terror cells bombing theaters, malls, public transit and other soft targets. US cities could become another Beruit or Baghdad. In addition, Iran could easily throw Western economies into chaos by attacking oil shipments in the Persian Gulf or Straits of Hormuz.
Living with a nuclear Iran is a problem that can be managed but is not the end of the world. The world has lived with other emerging nuclear nations that are sworn (as well as religious-based) enemies (such as Pakistan and India.) The solution is continued diplomatic and economic isolation as well as allowing neighboring countries to develop their own nuclear programs.
October 26, 2009, 3:19 pmMark Buehner says:
Hezbollah would and probably Hamas, but no states I think. Part of Israel’s problem is that if Iran gets the bomb and puts those terrorists group under some sort of nuclear umbrella, they would have virtually free reign to shower Israel with rockets. And thats probably the least bad scenario for Israel. Iran brazenly supports international terrorism now, imagine how they will behave when immune from reprisal.
October 26, 2009, 3:20 pmPLR says:
Posner, having left his cheerleading outfit at home, may not be invited back to AEI.
Yankev would likely be welcome in that pit of vipers, however, with his reiterations of various lies (not all of them noble IMO).
October 26, 2009, 3:36 pmMark Buehner says:
None of that is necessarily true. We have no idea what Israel knows, and they certainly wouldn’t require ground troops to ‘mark off’ targets in the age of smart bombs. A copy of google earth and gps will suffice. All this depends on Israel’s intelligence, which is habitually underestimated (with good reason given how awful ours has been over the last 50 years).
Perhaps. But perhaps not if we made it clear our first targets will be their oil and gasoline infrastructure that is their only source of income. We could easily and perhaps fatally cripple Iran’s economy with ease. They don’t have quite that luxury, although what they could do to the Persian Gulf is worrisome. Its entirely possible Iran would launch a few preemptory rockets at Israel and go whine to the UN, similar to how Iraq reacted to Osirak.
Oh good, more unstable regimes with nukes. THATS the solution.
There are 3 excellent reasons Iran can’t be allowed to get nukes and we should be willing to deal with the consequences of hitting them:
1.Iran could well be as crazy as they say they are, and may actually use a nuke on Israel.
October 26, 2009, 3:39 pm2.Even if they don’t do this, they will certainly up their terrorist activities under the protection of their nuclear shield. Fighting over the Gulf now may be preferable to fighting to fighting terrorist cells in the local mall, certainly for Israel.
3.Once Iran gains the bomb, they stability of their regime becomes of paramount importance. The kind of street protests we saw this summer would turn from a sign of hope into a potential for a nightmare. The risk of a popular uprising succeeding goes from our fondest hope to our greatest fear, as the possibility of a nuke being launched or smuggled out by the zealot dead-enders with control of them is probably the worst of all these scenarios.
James T. Carrington says:
The Saudis are the only ones thus far who are actually rehabilitating terrorists into something more useful than fertilizer.
October 26, 2009, 4:52 pmfirst history says:
From a recent LA Times article on the subject:
October 26, 2009, 5:01 pmYankev says:
PLR, who or what is AEI? And now that you have called me a liar, care to back it up?
October 26, 2009, 5:14 pmYankev says:
Okay, cancel the AEI question. My question to troll-boy PLR as to what lies he thinks I told still stands.
October 26, 2009, 5:18 pmMark Buehner says:
While i’m sure the LAT is an expert on Israel intelligence and strike capability, I’ll leave it to the Israelis to decide if an attack is practical and how best to carry it out. The idea that an Iranian nuclear program needs to be permanently ended to be a success is a red herring. Degrading and delaying their program is at least something. In long run, we’re all dead.
October 26, 2009, 5:26 pmfirst history says:
While i’m sure the LAT is an expert on Israel intelligence and strike capability, I’ll leave it to the Israelis to decide if an attack is practical and how best to carry it out.
Sarcasm aside, an Israeli decision to attack Iran won’t be made in a vacuum. Israel will get substantial help from the US, in the form of transit rights over Iraq, intelligence, and weapons. And rightly or wrongly, the US will be held equally responsible for the results, and no doubt will suffer the consequences as well.
October 26, 2009, 5:38 pmAriel says:
Israel may have already attacked Iran. There was an article a few weeks ago, in an Israeli paper, noting some interesting coincidences. A plane with Iranian nuclear scientists “crashed,” and some other similar incidents. It’s a failure of imagination to assume that the Israelis will only use air strikes, because that’s what they’ve used against Iraq and Syria.
October 26, 2009, 6:22 pmJaimeInTexas says:
Does Iran, Israel or any other country have the right to nuclear weapons?
If no, is our’s, China’s, Russia’s, etc nuclear weapons capability illegitimate?
Does Iran, etc have the right to peaceful nuclear power?
What is the proof that Iran is diverting enriched uranium for nuclear weapons?
Iran is a signatory to the NNP, Israel is not.
October 26, 2009, 7:18 pmOren says:
Can you explain how they would be any more protected than right now?
You don’t usually give away the queen to save a few pawns.
October 26, 2009, 8:09 pmMCR says:
JaimeInTexas: What right to nuclear weapons exists exists as a right to self-defense. Signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty give up some of that right, including the right to develop nuclear weapons. As you point out, Iran is a signatory; not an exemplary signatory by any means, but a signatory nonetheless.
The rest of your comment is straw-man nonsense.
October 26, 2009, 8:42 pmArthurKirkland says:
I do not propose to lecture Israel. I also wonder about the wisdom of funding Israel, and especially about the value of being Israel’s blood-and-treasure guarantor if it bites off more than it can chew (in part because providing that guarantee might generate substantial moral hazard).
Not a bad idea, but offering every Israeli a place in the southwest or in West Virgina seems preferable.
October 26, 2009, 8:43 pmBobDoyle says:
Does PLR ever offer anything but uncivil commentary?
October 26, 2009, 9:49 pmAlexia says:
BUt they have the right to enrich uranium for energy IIRC.
Israel doesn’t even officially have nuclear weapons. The ones they do have were built from plans stolen from America. Why no outrage?
October 27, 2009, 1:01 amCenrand says:
Actually, its not exactly secret that Israel’s nukes were made with the assistance of the french, not the americans. The reason only you are outraged is because only you seem to flaunt your ignorance. (which seems to be fairly common amongst critics of Israel these days…)
October 27, 2009, 5:59 amegd says:
Are there really such things as “rights” among sovereign nations? I don’t think so. There are only those actions that are acceptable or unacceptable to the rest of the international community.
If there are sovereign nation rights, what are some clear-cut examples? How are those enforced, if not through the voluntary acts of other nations?
Iran can seek nuclear weapons if it is willing to accept the consequences. Israel can hamper Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if it is willing to accept the consequences.
October 27, 2009, 10:13 amMark Buehner says:
Because we’re not in grammar school, where everybody gets to play with the toys equally because we’re all equally special. Israel was attacked by every one of its neighbors on the day of its founding, fought them twice more in twenty years, and still isn’t recognized by many of them who funnel arms and explosives to terrorists to blow up coffee houses. Iran being the primary on that. Iran, on the other hand, is unquestionably the worlds foremost funder and supporter of international terrorism, with a highly illiberal government that works hand in glove with some of the most murderous terrorists in the world. Context matters.
October 27, 2009, 10:25 amJaimeInTexas says:
“What is the proof that Iran is diverting enriched uranium for nuclear weapons?”
This question is straw-man nonsense?
BTW, I do not care that Israel has “the bomb” nor I care if Iran does too.
October 27, 2009, 10:37 amPLR says:
Perhaps Yankev has the answer.
And to BobDoyle, I believe my observation about Mr. Posner was quite civil, as are most of my other observations. I have perceived only a small number of recurring visitors here (fewer than 10, none of them moderators) who regularly disseminate misinformation, and who may mistake my indifference to civility as active hostility.
October 27, 2009, 10:54 amTheBadness says:
Are there really such things as “rights” among sovereign nations? I don’t think so. There are only those actions that are acceptable or unacceptable to the rest of the international community.
Ya know, I don’t normally agree with your comments, egd – but this is spot on. Iran doesn’t have “rights;” it has reserved attributes of sovereign authority. It signed a multilateral treaty by which it ceded certain, related portions of its sovereign authority.
October 27, 2009, 11:26 amYankev says:
I’m not much of a chess player but the queen can be most effective in deterring the removal of pawns, especially if the pawns are being used to guard a critical square, or as part of a combined attack on the king or a major piece, or if the pawn can be promoted.
October 27, 2009, 12:09 pmYankev says:
He’s not really flaunting it, he only seems to? He sure fooled me. (Sorry, couldn’t resist, and I agree thoroughly with your observation.)
PLR, however, does not. He is very free with making unsubstantiated charges of falsehood and not much on backing them up. I tend to agree with BobDoyle where this particular troll is concerned.
October 27, 2009, 12:12 pmYankev says:
PLR is very free with making unsubstantiated charges of falsehood and not much on backing them up. I tend to agree with BobDoyle where this particular troll is concerned.
October 27, 2009, 12:13 pmegd says:
Not straw-man nonsense, but rather a burden of proof issue. Under the NPT, Iran has the burden to demonstrate that it’s use of enrichment is not for weapons purposes. It is very secretive about the enrichment purpose, and the discovery of previously undisclosed sites makes even their broad statements questionable. The fact that Ahmadinejad has promised to blow up Israel and (according to a U.S. Government Approved News Service) refused to rule out pursuing nuclear weapons means Iran is not satisfying their requirements under the NPT.
I’m glad to see you’ve come to see the error of your ways :D
But the NPT includes a reservation of the right to use nuclear energy for power generation (although not a “right” in the same sense as Jaime used it), so the use of nuclear technology is not ceded by the treaty.
October 27, 2009, 12:17 pmPLR says:
Presumably this week’s IAEA inspections are part of that process.
All countries are secretive. The “discovery” occurred, as far as the general public is concerned, because Iran listed the site in its own report.
Not a fact.
… although the Supreme Leader has ruled them out …
Not true. It signals a concern about future compliance.
October 27, 2009, 2:21 pmEinhverfr says:
It seems to me that the main factor here would be whether Europeans would stop buying Israeli goods, as they did during Operation Defensive Shield. Israel cannot afford to have EU members, esp. member states defer or cancel orders, nor can it really afford to lose the Turkish market as well.
I predict no action against Iran will be taken unless Israel is willing to suffer economic collapse as a result or unless the main trading partners in the EU give a green light (UK, Norway, and Germany, iirc).
October 27, 2009, 2:23 pmMark Buehner says:
Its good to see that the bully regime apologist crowd has a new horse to back now that the Soviets are defunked and Castro is lying low. Its perfectly reasonable that Iran, known world over as sticklers for international agreements and green energy, are setting aside improvements to their petroleum infrastructure so feeble that they actually have to import gasoline while sitting on one of the worlds largest oil deposits in order to bring their C02 free nuclear power program on line (nuclear power is only evil when Westerners use it, even more evil than C02 in that case) and continuously earning the ire of the IAEA simply to keep their lawyer employed at parsing their agreements as speciously as possible. All of this, of course, could easily be cleared up by allowing IAEA unlimited inspections and even agreeing to have a third country enrich their fissile material, thereby mollifying the world, but thankfully Iran will have none of that and continues to stand on their well known love for the intricacies of obscure laws and, of course, their love of green energy.
That is absolutely a reasonable read on what Iran is doing. For the useful idiots of the world.
October 27, 2009, 2:48 pmHarryEagar says:
Yes.
October 27, 2009, 5:56 pmOren says:
And it can withdraw from the treaty. No government of a sovereign nation may bind future governments to such an obligation. It’s contrary to the power of the future-sovereign.
But therein lies the heart of the matter — Iran has no desire to see Hizbollah “promoted” to a status where they might exercise power independently or even against Iranian interests (for instance, Iran might want a period of calm for diplomatic reasons). That is to say, in real chess, the Queen is careful never to promote any of her pawns lest they start having designs of their own.
Consider, for instance, the militants in Pakistan that the ISI nurtured as a counterbalance to Indian power. Now the Pakistani Army has to clean house because they decided to stop playing by the ISI’s rules.
October 27, 2009, 8:23 pmJaimeInTexas says:
On the use of the word “rights” being applied to States. I agree that the proper word is authorities/powers but rights has been use a synonym. The Volokh Conspiracy had a thread on this issue a while back.
My understanding is that signatories to the NNP (or NPT) are to report, a number of weeks ahead, before a site is to be fitted with equipment. A site can be built in secret but, if the site will enrich uranium, the site must be disclosed BEFORE equipment is installed. Building itself does not require disclosure.
Am I wrong?
October 27, 2009, 10:23 pmYankev says:
In real chess, none of the pieces — the pawn, the queen or even the king — has a mind of its own. Is it beyond your imagination that Iran could use the bomb to protect Hizbollah while retaining control over when and how? The US certainly used its nukes to protect South Korea without turning South Korea into a nuclear power. Or that Iran might make bombs available to Hizbollah in way that retains control over their use, e.g. by assigning Iranian agents, engineers or soldiers who had sole access to the necessary launch codes, arming codes or other technology? IMHO you are too blithely dismissing or minimizing the risk.
Again, I see risks in attacking and in not attacking, but it seems to me a huge mistake to trust Iran to neither use the bomb nor strategically threaten to.
October 28, 2009, 9:53 amegd says:
Pardon my hyperbole, what he actually said was:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury”
“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, … The World without Zionism”
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map”
“We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.”
“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”
“If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”
“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”
October 28, 2009, 10:35 amJohn David Galt says:
Domestic law has long since recognized that if I point a gun at you, you have the right to kill me in self-defense without waiting for me to pull the trigger first. This rule is universally accepted for a simple and practical reason: once I point it at you, if I pull the trigger you’re dead immediately; there won’t be any later opportunity for you to prevent your own death, so you have to do it right now.
Once a nation (or any other group) has a WMD and missiles (or equivalent) to deliver it, anybody within range of those missiles is in the same situation. Either they strike first, or they are dead. That is certainly enough to justify Israel striking first, especially since Iran and its president have repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel.
Forget about the UN and the concept of international law. Neither has any teeth, or can ever have them, in the area of warfare, because when you come down to it, the only way to punish any nation for violating UN rules or international law is to wage war against them.
Besides, the UN’s professed ideals have always been a joke. The UN is a club formed by and for the winners of WW2, for the purpose of preserving the results of that war, just like the League of Nations (formed after WW1) and the Congress of Vienna (after Waterloo). Each of those became irrelevant and dissolved in the next major war, and I expect WW3 any month now. I just hope it doesn’t come during Obama’s presidency, because he is too stupid to win it even with the US behind him.
October 29, 2009, 5:47 pmJaimeInTexas says:
“Domestic law has long since recognized that if I point a gun at you, you have the right to kill me in self-defense without waiting for me to pull the trigger first … Once a nation (or any other group) has a WMD and missiles (or equivalent) to deliver it, anybody within range of those missiles is in the same situation.”
In your attempt at analogy you failed to understand that owning/possessing a gun IS NOT necessarily that same as pointing the gun.
November 1, 2009, 10:26 pmJohn David Galt says:
@JaimeInTexas: The essential similarity is not the “pointing” but the fact that the people whose lives are being threatened have no way to distinguish the present instant from “one millisecond before I’m going to die.” That’s why they MUST strike first (and therefore should be allowed to).
November 2, 2009, 10:59 pmEvgenie Евгения says:
I think World must be a danger if IRAN really have nuclear program (small or big program).
Do you think that Ahmadinejad power and his evil spirit to kill their enemy (priority Israel and israel-america family.
Rusia sell all nuclear knowledge to Iran because money.
I just think America George bush is very wrong to attack Iraq Saddam husein.
USA if not attack Saddam, Can use and work together to attack IRAN the real devil for nonmuslim/ non islam.
nowaday.
Israel and US can Start war, because Ahmadinejad say Iran enemy is mosquito.
Iran president doesnot talk, but he is not afraid a big country like israel and US because they have Albert Einstein nuclear technology.
I think Israel, US, Europe and UNO can work together to bomb/destroy Iran Nuclear site.
We cannot ignore a evil country like IRAN, they have Quran brain, I think ALI SINA an ex-muslim is truth say that the error thing is Quran
it make people to Jihad war and do not afraid to die.
I hope US and Europe can destroy Iran Nuclear site as fast as they can.
November 3, 2009, 4:22 amWithout Nuclear power in Iran more safety for a peace world.
steve gordon says:
November 9, 2009, 5:12 pmKimberely Flom says:
Brilliant web-site, where did you obtain the layout?
July 15, 2010, 2:33 am